Mean While At the Ford Factory!!!

[72MachOne99GT]

Originally Posted by SPARTAN sui

I had no idea the front end was that similar to the Fusion. Reminds me of the 06-07 Impala/Monte Carlo.

Let's not forget about mid to late 80s monte carlos and camaros

I understand the distaste for the car on this forum, but some of these comments are comical.

I like the "no muscle car should have 4 cylinders comment" even if that 4cyl is making more hp/tq than the manly v6 of the same year, as well as more hp and tq than the base v8 model of a few years prior.

damn you technology!

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by trademaster

True enough on some points, but on turbo lag I disagree. The lag of years past is almost non-existent now. Engines comparable to the twin-scroll turbo DI 2.3 coming to Mustang routinely see peak torque before 3,000rpm which is way earlier than the v6 will see peak torque. As far as cost, well you are getting higher output. If that's not worth the cost to you the point is irrelevant anyway.

No matter how good the system is, turbo lag will still be present. Its less than it used to be but you can't fight the basic mechanics of how turbocharging works. Its based off of a feedback loop: exhaust drives turbine to draw more air, which creates more exhaust which drives the turbine even harder. Clever little system, but it takes time. No amount of light-weighting the turbo, using super bearings, or using the the turbo as the exhaust manifold will eliminate that cycle time. The only way to completely eliminate it would be to have an externally driven turbo that feeds directly into the intake (or replaces the intake itself) whose air output is tied to the engine RPM. Such devices exists, we usually call them 'super chargers'

It was somebody else talking about power bands

Cost ... well, if it isn't a better engine overall I don't see any justification for a higher pricetag. We'll see what the numbers are in a few months. But I'm going to guess that the 'combined output' of hp+torque will be about the same between the V6 and T4. And if the price of fueling them is the same too (with any fuel economy benefit negated by recomending premium or at least midgrade) I don't see any real value being added. I understand the added cost ... but if it doesn't do anything for me, its not worth anything to me.

Originally Posted by trademaster

Again I'll have to disagree here. To get a v6 to v8 power levels you will need forced induction (assuming we exclude nitrous). It's much easier to swap turbos, change exhaust, tune and add fuel than it is to add forced induction to a car that is N/A from the factory. Look how hard it is for the v6 Camaro guys to make 400whp then compare that to a Mitsu Evo or one of the Subarus, even a turbo cobalt. If you're talking about some really high numbers sure displacement might become more significant. Even then, a built I4 will cost you less than a built v6 and there's no shortage of 500+whp turbo 4s. Other than that mod for mod and $ for $ the turbo cars are going to wreak havoc on the v6 cars.

The engines in Evo's and STi's are slightly different beasts than the Ecoboasts. If past history is anything to go by, the 2.3 will be 'strengthened' but not fully forged. And I wouldn't trust an engine producing 200 hp/L with hyper-eut pistons.

Of course, the V6 will also eventually reach a point where its going to need to be built to support FI too. And after it hits it, there will probably be a bit of a window where its cheaper to hit XYZ hp with a turbo 4. But after that .... hold on, this is just getting ridiculous. If there is anyone out there that wants to make a 600 hp+ Mustang 'the hard way' (without a V8) ... chances are, they don't really care how much it costs to do so.

[NASTY99Z28]

It looks good enough to please the masses but not everyone but then again not much does. My only issue is the guys on the stang sites are saying the 4 banger is 200lbs lighter then the v8 but the v8 is still the same weight. Now for them adding IRS and not adding weight that's impressive but not the drastic weight loss the rumors suggested. Regardless its improved the balance of the car and it should now handle and ride better them before. I just hope for the drag racing diehards it holds up well and isn't plaques with wheel hop.

[roorback]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I would not be surprised if Mustang pulls ahead of Camaro in sales until the 6th gen arrives.

Just sayin'.

Oh we're not surprised at all. We've seen the 2014 refresh. At least the Rustang doesn't have high-class chrome strips.

[trademaster]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Not proof, at all. So basically you're wishing, like the Ford guys were wishing when they claimed the new Mustang would weigh 500 pounds less.

Here's what's really going to happen: The 4 will come in slightly lower, performance wise, than the V6, but the V6 will be detuned even lower than the 4, to entice people to pay the extra money for the 4.

LOL. I am using logic. What are you using, a crystal ball? The Ford engineers have said the turbo 4 has a broader torque curve and there is no reason to believe otherwise. You don't even seem to know the difference between twin-scroll and twin-turbo.

Here's a stock Focus ST dyno, ecoboost 2.0l



There is no logical reason a 2.3l ecoboost won't have a similar curve, but with more output. Make a logical rebuttal and we'll continue.

When I say it will respond better to mods I mean exactly that. Look at any 250-300hp turbo 4 on the market and compare what it picks up with basic bolt ons to any of the N/A v6 engines around. The difference is enormous.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

No matter how good the system is, turbo lag will still be present. Its less than it used to be but you can't fight the basic mechanics of how turbocharging works. Its based off of a feedback loop: exhaust drives turbine to draw more air, which creates more exhaust which drives the turbine even harder. Clever little system, but it takes time. No amount of light-weighting the turbo, using super bearings, or using the the turbo as the exhaust manifold will eliminate that cycle time. The only way to completely eliminate it would be to have an externally driven turbo that feeds directly into the intake (or replaces the intake itself) whose air output is tied to the engine RPM. Such devices exists, we usually call them 'super chargers'

Almost non-existent does not equal non-existent. Turbo lag is incredibly small with modern twin-scroll, ball-bearing turbos. There is plenty of exhaust to spool at tip-in, it just takes a split second to pressurize and bam. . . boost. Drive a car with a proper twin-scroll turbo and you will see what I mean. It will always exist, but it has become negligible in performance driving. The very minor lag is made up for and then some by a vastly superior torque curve to an N/A V6.

We'll see when the car comes out, but I'd bet the ecoboost model is considerably quicker than the V6

[NASTY99Z28]

This is one of my favorite forums but some of you guys are killing me with the anti-turbo 4 comments. With today's tech there's almost no need for a n/a v6 other then it might be cheaper to build but if you stop building them and build more t4's then there cost would go down. If you want cheaper cost and better mpg's then a turbo 4 is the way to go because lets face it its the same reason why v6 guys choose them over v8's.

[tones2SS]

Originally Posted by RubberChicken

I don't get it. That new Mustang doesn't look like a muscle car to me at all.

Exactly. I don't like it at all.

[Stingray]

Originally Posted by NASTY99Z28

This is one of my favorite forums but some of you guys are killing me with the anti-turbo 4 comments. With today's tech there's almost no need for a n/a v6 other then it might be cheaper to build but if you stop building them and build more t4's then there cost would go down. If you want cheaper cost and better mpg's then a turbo 4 is the way to go because lets face it its the same reason why v6 guys choose them over v8's.

Agree with this. The turbo-4 is also the new trend to comingle performance with better mileage ratings (esp. to tackle stringent CAFE requirements)... more cost-effective and less-invasive mod potential too.

[Blakk11SS]

the 'FuStang' a Fusionized-Mustang.

good going fordo, the more i see it the more upsetting it is. have the new design ideas been all used up? this has got to stop before a car gets hurt

[Number 3]

Saying a 4 cylinder can't go in a muscle car is exactly the same as saying V6 can't go in muscle car.

Remember, every "muscle car" in history had a plebian mom and pop version for volume. Not every Chevelle was an SS nor was every Camaro. Are we forgetting the Berlinetta? That alone could discount any Camaro ever built as being a muscle car.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Saying a 4 cylinder can't go in a muscle car is exactly the same as saying V6 can't go in muscle car.

Remember, every "muscle car" in history had a plebian mom and pop version for volume. Not every Chevelle was an SS nor was every Camaro. Are we forgetting the Berlinetta? That alone could discount any Camaro ever built as being a muscle car.

How right you are. For that matter "muscle" cars came out of every day family cars for the most part.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by trademaster

LOL. I am using logic. What are you using, a crystal ball? The Ford engineers have said the turbo 4 has a broader torque curve and there is no reason to believe otherwise. You don't even seem to know the difference between twin-scroll and twin-turbo.

This from the guy who supports a higher costing, higher maintenance, same performance replacement for a V6. I'll believe you're as smart as you think you are when you acknowledge the obvious.

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Those of us who were enthusiasts in the mid-'80s well recall the HALO Mustang: something called the SVO. Quite a car, burdened by advanced engineering (for the time) that was 'spensive in low volumes.

The stated purpose of the Turbo-4 is to satisfy offshore vehicle taxation, based on displacement. Expect the Turbo-4 version to be the "volume" export, and to appeal to youthful/"green" home-market intenders, who may otherwise shun "wasteful, overly large displacement engines". Their words, not mine. And something GM should reconsider.

Added volume will surely assist the Business Case of the EuroStang before the in-Fusion of a Lincoln 4-dr platform mate, ala ATS/3-Series/C-Class/IS. Volume required.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

This from the guy who supports a higher costing, higher maintenance, same performance replacement for a V6. I'll believe you're as smart as you think you are when you acknowledge the obvious.

Here's where you may (and will) be mistaken. The current 3.7L Mustang produces 305/280, not bad. However, taken into account of the more than likely weight loss of the S550, performance from a I4-T that in its MKC form makes 275/300 (we should see 310+/310+ in Mustang guise) should easily outpace the 3.7L by simply out torquing the sixxer. And as a side benefit, if you can stay out of the throttle, it should also yield better overall fuel mileage.